Bell Etiquette

buffalo · 11-04-2019 8:57am

Also, pro tip: ring your bell from a distance. Ringing from 15-30m away gives more time for people to become aware, and if they turn or move in a weird way, there's plenty of time to brake.

I wouldn't ring right behind someone as I'm about to overtake them, as you're as likely to give them a fright as just overtaking without warning.

Lumen · 11-04-2019 9:38am

Possibly the reason people react badly is because they equate it with being beeped at, which is routinely (and wrongly) used as a rebuke.

So maybe we should suck up the bad reactions in an attempt to reassert the classic non-aggressive meaning of the bicycle bell, which is to warn others of our approach.

11-04-2019 9:48am

jim o doom wrote: »

Have you ever driven a car or ridden a motorcycle? There is a very obvious and direct comparison.

If you are in a car with very good seals, or have a radio on.. guess what, you don't hear any traffic. A motorcycle can come along suddenly and overtake, which is a surprise due to the lack of sound.

The same is true on a motorcycle, if it has a loud engine / pipes, the only thing you can hear is.. your own engine and the sound of wind whistling through your helmet. Again, a faster driving motorcycle / vehicle can appear suddenly, surprising you as it overtakes.

In both of the above situations - the overtaking vehicle generally will not sound their horn. Because it's not the done thing, that is not the use of the horn, it's more likely to DISTRACT the person you are ovetaking, as they are trying to ascertain WHY exactly you are beeping at them, the same is true of a bell.

If I heard someone ringing behind me who then overtook, I would be wondering "what is wrong with that r/tard with their bloody bell". It rarely happens as I cycle quickly to get home fast in a sweaty heap though.

Also - a bell means "I'm here, I'm coming through?" As in, give me the right of way? If you are overtaking someone, you don't need that as you don't have the right of way.

Either overtake in the car lane if there is space to do so and traffic is moving, or don't dangerously overtake in an insufficiently sized cycling lane.

yes I have and do, and no it isn't.
There is no expectation for a car or motorbike to be whizzing past pedestrians on the path, pedestrians can and do move out, but there is an understanding among people (mostly) that know where vehicles will be on a road and a convention for which way they travel (and I exclude children, who may not know and is why drivers should proceed with care where children may be present) the only comparable aspect you mention is the noise, so engines or rolling noise of tyres on the ground, mostly vehicles arent silent, it's possible to hear an approaching motorised vehicle in advance, have had twits on bikes whiz past me when walking my dog or out with my son, a brief bike bell ring fron 20m back would help, never heard them coming, one idiot crashed into me on a bike on the path before, its painful, wouldnt fancy getting gouged with pedals and I don't recommend whizzing past people unannounced.

downtheroad · 11-04-2019 9:52am

Lumen wrote: »

Possibly the reason people react badly is because they equate it with being beeped at, which is routinely (and wrongly) used as a rebuke.

So maybe we should suck up the bad reactions in an attempt to reassert the classic non-aggressive meaning of the bicycle bell, which is to warn others of our approach.

Agree with this. I was cycling along Baggot Street earlier this week and there was a guy crossing the road looking at his phone walking directly into my path so I rang the bell just to let him know I was there. He threw a banana skin at me. Maybe he would have preferred me to collide with him.

magicbastarder · 11-04-2019 10:32am

buffalo wrote: »

Also, pro tip: ring your bell from a distance. Ringing from 15-30m away gives more time for people to become aware, and if they turn or move in a weird way, there's plenty of time to brake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TitiERjidhI

CramCycle · 11-04-2019 10:38am

I understand all the comments above but I just don't see what it achieves better than your voice. The only reason I can see people wanting to use it is so they can carry their speed through, and to be honest, that's not a good enough reason for me. No different than any other vehicle, slow down and move past when safe and there is space. Maybe that's why I and some others have such a dim view of them because typically it is someone carrying on through whether you have heeded the bell or not.

11-04-2019 10:44am

DavyD_83 wrote: »

I'd take it as equivalent of beeping a you pass somebody when driving.
Generally indicates that the person was in some way in the wrong and 'in your way'.
The response you received sounds fairly typical, especially if as you say other had already passed her, so there was obviously enough space being left etc.

What did you intend to indicate or achieve by ringing the bell?

Depends on the beep.

In a car a quick double tap is a notification of something whereas a single long blast is a F.U.

I live in a cycle heavy rural area and will hang behind cyclists until I get a safe overtaking patch, I will tend to double tap beep as I start my manoeuvre just as a heads up. I've yet to get anything but a wave through before or a polite nod/slight wave as I pass, from anyone.

I do the same to tractors or other slow moving traffic because generally you are accelerating from a fairly sedate speed to overtake as quickly as the conditions allow.

buffalo · 11-04-2019 10:47am

CramCycle wrote: »

I understand all the comments above but I just don't see what it achieves better than your voice. The only reason I can see people wanting to use it is so they can carry their speed through, and to be honest, that's not a good enough reason for me. No different than any other vehicle, slow down and move past when safe and there is space. Maybe that's why I and some others have such a dim view of them because typically it is someone carrying on through whether you have heeded the bell or not.

My experience of using my voice usually involves waiting until I'm right behind a person and then giving them a fright and causing general confusion and some awkwardness on the part of the other person (and occasionally getting given out to for not using a bell). Giving ample warning would involve shouting at them, which I obviously don't want to do.

My speed is most situations where I'm using my bell is about 15-20kph, so that's not really a concern for me. If I'm going faster then 25kph and a pedestrian is in my line, braking and avoidance measures take precedence over the bell.

CramCycle · 11-04-2019 11:07am

buffalo wrote: »

My experience of using my voice usually involves waiting until I'm right behind a person and then giving them a fright and causing general confusion and some awkwardness on the part of the other person (and occasionally getting given out to for not using a bell). Giving ample warning would involve shouting at them, which I obviously don't want to do.

My speed is most situations where I'm using my bell is about 15-20kph, so that's not really a concern for me. If I'm going faster then 25kph and a pedestrian is in my line, braking and avoidance measures take precedence over the bell.

Get a more expensive rear wheel and freewheel from a distance.

tomasrojo · 12-04-2019 1:48am

what_traffic wrote: »

Interesting thread.
What is the RSA position or instructions on it?

I could only find the following
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf

apart from stating the following (which is correct)

cannot find any information on when to use a bell.

Not sure whether I mentioned it in this thread, but The Unbelievable Truth had a bit about the original law in the UK, repealed in the 1930s IIRC, which was that cyclists were supposed to ring the bell *constantly* while in motion. I guess it was based on the bike being the quietest form of transport that was also potentially pretty fast.

plodder · 12-04-2019 7:52am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not sure whether I mentioned it in this thread, but The Unbelievable Truth had a bit about the original law in the UK, repealed in the 1930s IIRC, which was that cyclists were supposed to ring the bell *constantly* while in motion. I guess it was based on the bike being the quietest form of transport that was also potentially pretty fast.

That sounds a bit like the law that required a man to walk in front of motorised vehicles waving a red flag.

Have to say as well I find motorists who give a warning beep when passing cyclists to be extremely irritating, but thankfully very few do it.

Hurrache · 12-04-2019 10:30am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not sure whether I mentioned it in this thread, but The Unbelievable Truth had a bit about the original law in the UK, repealed in the 1930s IIRC, which was that cyclists were supposed to ring the bell *constantly* while in motion. I guess it was based on the bike being the quietest form of transport that was also potentially pretty fast.

That's how lollipop sticks stuck through the brake bracket and into the spokes came about. Necessity before coolness. Fact.

plodder · 12-04-2019 12:48pm

Hurrache wrote: »

That's how lollipop sticks stuck through the brake bracket and into the spokes came about. Necessity before coolness. Fact.

I seem to remember experiments as a kid with playing cards and clothes pegs.

AndrewJRenko · 14-04-2019 9:22am

buffalo wrote: »

My experience of using my voice usually involves waiting until I'm right behind a person and then giving them a fright and causing general confusion and some awkwardness on the part of the other person (and occasionally getting given out to for not using a bell). Giving ample warning would involve shouting at them, which I obviously don't want to do.
.

There is a real quandary here as to whether you're better off letting them know that you're coming up behind or not. If you do let them know, either by calling or by ringing, there is a chance, albeit a small one, of them panicking and jumping into your planned path. If you do nothing and just given them enough room, you have more control over the manoeuvre and less risk. I'm never quite sure.

I've found the bell fairly effective in getting people to move over the shared path coming up from Balally Luas. Some people are all iPodded up and don't hear anything.

Rechuchote · 17-04-2019 9:55am

I usually ring three times - when I'm a good way behind, when I'm nearish & when I'm about to pass. If people are offended I'm sorry; they'd be sorrier if they suddenly wandered right and had a fat cyclist and bike on them.

Brian? · 17-04-2019 9:57am

The correct etiquette is a polite call of "on your right" just before you over take.

It has always been thus.

Rechuchote · 17-04-2019 10:01am

Brian? wrote: »

The correct etiquette is a polite call of "on your right" just before you over take.

It has always been thus.

Has it so? I've been cycling for 64 years but have only heard this term in the last couple of years. When I was a sprog I was taught to ring a bell.

DavyD_83 · 17-04-2019 10:15am

Rechuchote wrote: »

Has it so? I've been cycling for 64 years but have only heard this term in the last couple of years. When I was a sprog I was taught to ring a bell.

I assume 'on your right' is a cycle club/sport thing?

On a basic level, I still don't get why people think they have a God-given right to squeeze up the side of any cyclist who is going slower than they would like.

Unless there is oodles of space for you to just sail past (no bell required) it is up to the person in front to 'allow' you to pass. When cycling, or driving, I'm aware of what/who is behind me and whether they are coming up fast, being overly aggressive etc.
In both cases, if there is space, and I want to let them pass me, I will pull over to the left hand side of my lane and make it pretty clear by my position and movement that I am cool with them over-taking if they want.

Cyclist don't have rear-view mirrors, but we do have rotating heads, and no pillars in our way. If a cyclist is struggling along slowly with no awareness of who is around them, a spandex warrior ringing a bell at them is the equivalent of a truck honking at a Learner driver. Nobody benefits.

There are some scenarios where a little ding of thanks, look out etc makes sense; but mostly where the other person already knows you exist.

Can't we all just get along. Save your bell for the pedestrians and drivers (or a cyclist in the wrong maybe)

Brian? · 17-04-2019 11:00am

Rechuchote wrote: »

Has it so? I've been cycling for 64 years but have only heard this term in the last couple of years. When I was a sprog I was taught to ring a bell.

It has for the last 35 years anyway.

But I’ve never owned a bike with a bell.

CramCycle · 17-04-2019 12:39pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

Has it so? I've been cycling for 64 years but have only heard this term in the last couple of years. When I was a sprog I was taught to ring a bell.

On your right is rarely used outside of club/race settings. i notice a few people saying it on commutes but this only over the last few years. It seems to typically have the affect of making the person being shouted at sway to the right as they look around them.

It would appear to be like many of the suggestions on this thread as an excuse not to slow down or give distance while passing.

Brian? · 18-04-2019 6:15am

CramCycle wrote: »

On your right is rarely used outside of club/race settings. i notice a few people saying it on commutes but this only over the last few years. It seems to typically have the affect of making the person being shouted at sway to the right as they look around them.

It would appear to be like many of the suggestions on this thread as an excuse not to slow down or give distance while passing.

If you're shouting at someone, you're doing it wrong. It's a polite announcement that you're coming up so the rider in front doesn't spook as you get into their peripheral vision. Absolutely you should give distance when passing, but why would you slow down to pass?

I would say nothing in a race, haven't raced in 20 years, or in a club setting. in both scenarios you're in a group, so there's no need to alert people to your presence. I will admit to shouting at people in races in the past, mainly out of fear.

Since moving to the Netherlands, I have replaced it with a polite "hallo" as this seems to be the most common thing to say here. People here only use the bell at pedestrians, rarely at other cyclists.

CramCycle · 18-04-2019 6:50am

Brian? wrote: »

If you're shouting at someone, you're doing it wrong. It's a polite announcement that you're coming up so the rider in front doesn't spook as you get into their peripheral vision. Absolutely you should give distance when passing, but why would you slow down to pass?

Slowing down for pedestrians in the main, but for a cyclist it might be too make sure they know you are there and are ready for you to pass.

I would say nothing in a race, haven't raced in 20 years, or in a club setting. in both scenarios you're in a group, so there's no need to alert people to your presence. I will admit to shouting at people in races in the past, mainly out of fear.

Mainly for people changing their lines without warning, or you can tell they haven't copped you and are about to switch out in front of you, not for general overtaking obviously, shure there would be no peace if that was the case.

Since moving to the Netherlands, I have replaced it with a polite "hallo" as this seems to be the most common thing to say here. People here only use the bell at pedestrians, rarely at other cyclists.

In Ireland, if you come up behind someone and say Hello, it sounds sarcastic as they are facing away from you, say excuse me, it acknowledges their right to be there and you asking to come around, again, mainly for pedestrian/cyclist interactions.
I use a "sorry" or "excuse me" in a nice friendly tone. The reason you would slow down, is for me anyway, my commuting speed in recent times varies between 15kmph and 50kmph, coming past someone at 50k an hour with a polite excuse me, why bother saying anything at all. On a main road I just move out and give enough space, on a shared space or similar, i slow down because you never know how someone might react. If I slow, most people hear my freewheel so they are expecting it but if I do it right, when I get close, I can say excuse me or sorry, typically they will move slightly over and I just have to say thank you, the reason for slowing here is even when expected, passing at speed, for some can be an uncomfortable experience.

Rechuchote · 18-04-2019 7:30am

Brian? wrote: »

It has for the last 35 years anyway.

But I’ve never owned a bike with a bell.

Legally, you're supposed to have a bell if you're riding on the public road.

Corca Baiscinn · 18-04-2019 7:46am

Rechuchote wrote: »

Legally, you're supposed to have a bell if you're riding on the public road.

Afaik doesn't apply to road bikes so they need to stick with the "on your right".

Brian? · 18-04-2019 8:31am

Rechuchote wrote: »

Legally, you're supposed to have a bell if you're riding on the public road.

Unless you are in a race or training for a race is the caveat to that law. So every time I go out on my "racing" bike I am exempt.

homer911 · 18-04-2019 8:45am

Brian? wrote: »

Unless you are in a race or training for a race is the caveat to that law. So every time I go out on my "racing" bike I am exempt.

I hope you are prepared to argue that one in court!

Brian? · 18-04-2019 8:54am

homer911 wrote: »

I hope you are prepared to argue that one in court!

You think that'll ever happen? I don't. Even if I did, I can show my CI racing licence and walk.

plodder · 18-04-2019 9:47am

The original regulation from 1963 said that bikes constructed or adapted for racing were exempt. It didn't depend (by my reading) on whether you were actually racing or training for racing. I don't know if that regulation was ever updated. Though at the same time, a bell is hardly that big a deal. I'd be surprised if bike shops would sell any bike without one.

Brian? · 18-04-2019 12:21pm

plodder wrote: »

The original regulation from 1963 said that bikes constructed or adapted for racing were exempt. It didn't depend (by my reading) on whether you were actually racing or training for racing. I don't know if that regulation was ever updated. Though at the same time, a bell is hardly that big a deal. I'd be surprised if bike shops would sell any bike without one.

No shop sells a road bike with a bell, to the best of my knowledge. I seriously question how useful bells are full stop. A shout is far more effective.

plodder · 18-04-2019 12:28pm

Brian? wrote: »

No shop sells a road bike with a bell, to the best of my knowledge. I seriously question how useful bells are full stop. A shout is far more effective.

I guess we are both going from anecdotal evidence. But, Halfords does ... or did .. in my case.

TheChizler · 18-04-2019 12:32pm

Brian? wrote: »

No shop sells a road bike with a bell, to the best of my knowledge. I seriously question how useful bells are full stop. A shout is far more effective.

Personally hearing a shout would just confuse me, but hearing a bell would trigger an instant association with a bike.

Tombo2001 · 18-04-2019 12:36pm

jim o doom wrote: »

I think the majority of people simply overtake. Cars don't beep at each other when they are overtaking and pedestrians don't shout or speak when overtaking other pedestrians.. why would you ring a bell at someone?

They will be aware you are overtaking them when you go past them, same as every other mode of transport. There is also no need to shout at them either. Just signal as necessary and overtake.

Look at it this way; how often do you see overtaking cyclists make any indication to the person they are overtaking? For me it is never. I'd be confused as to why someone was ringing their bell at me when they overtook.

Cars have mirrors though.

I do think there is an ego thing at play with the cyclist in front getting annoyed; its not saying get out of the way, its simply saying I'm coming past, and from a safety point of view that can only be a good thing.

homer911 · 18-04-2019 12:57pm

plodder wrote: »

Though at the same time, a bell is hardly that big a deal. I'd be surprised if bike shops would sell any bike without one.

Don't want to drag off topic, but a rear reflector is also required by law but it seems almost all bikes are being sold without one and I'd have thought this was of greater importance

CramCycle · 18-04-2019 1:00pm

I think its one of those weird differences between UK and Irish law. UK require all bikes to be sold with a bell, it is probably less compliant now but that was the law, but there was no legal requirement to have one. We are the opposite, no legal requirement to sell a bike with one but there is a legal requirement to have one, with said exceptions, maybe can someone can correct me or confirm.

partyguinness · 18-04-2019 1:05pm

I would have thought that was the whole point of a bell. To use so as to alert people.

Sure if you are cycling behind a pedestrian and they do not realise you are there and step in front of you causing a collision they will be first out ranting that you made no noise or used your bell...:rolleyes:

I run a lot in a park with cyclists and they will ring their bell if coming up behind us. I am glad of it as I may veer suddenly across the road/path depending on the surface.

partyguinness · 18-04-2019 1:06pm

jim o doom wrote: »

I think the majority of people simply overtake. Cars don't beep at each other when they are overtaking and pedestrians don't shout or speak when overtaking other pedestrians.. why would you ring a bell at someone?

They will be aware you are overtaking them when you go past them, same as every other mode of transport. There is also no need to shout at them either. Just signal as necessary and overtake.

Look at it this way; how often do you see overtaking cyclists make any indication to the person they are overtaking? For me it is never. I'd be confused as to why someone was ringing their bell at me when they overtook.

So what do you think the purpose of a bell is?

Comparing it to overtaking cars is just wrong on so many levels.

DavyD_83 · 18-04-2019 1:30pm

partyguinness wrote: »

So what do you think the purpose of a bell is?

Comparing it to overtaking cars is just wrong on so many levels.

To alert others to get out (and/or stay out) of your way when they should not be where they are, or look like they are going to drift into your way.

My main objection to the ringing from behind is that IMO it implies you have more right to the road/path than the person in front.

Murp, going in circles at this stage. I'm out :rolleyes:

partyguinness · 18-04-2019 1:52pm

DavyD_83 wrote: »

To alert others to get out (and/or stay out) of your way when they should not be where they are, or look like they are going to drift into your way.

My main objection to the ringing from behind is that IMO it implies you have more right to the road/path than the person in front.

In your eyes it is ok to say 'Get out of my way etc' from the front but not from behind. There is no logic in that whatsoever. It is infinitely more dangerous from behind.

It does not imply that at all from behind. It is you that is making that inference as a matter of personal interpretation. Others see as a means of notifying a walker that I am behind you in case they suddenly walk out in front.

It isn't a case of 'Get out of my way pleb'. Simply "Take note- I am cycling behind you."

plodder · 18-04-2019 2:39pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I think its one of those weird differences between UK and Irish law. UK require all bikes to be sold with a bell, it is probably less compliant now but that was the law, but there was no legal requirement to have one. We are the opposite, no legal requirement to sell a bike with one but there is a legal requirement to have one, with said exceptions, maybe can someone can correct me or confirm.

.. which may be why Halfords provides them as standard.

CollyFlower · 18-04-2019 11:00pm

Brian? wrote: »

No shop sells a road bike with a bell, to the best of my knowledge. I seriously question how useful bells are full stop. A shout is far more effective.

You can't even get mudgards when buying a bike now... Regarding, Bicycle bells, do people still use the 'ding-ding` ones, the ones that can't be heard in traffic?.. I have a an alarm like one, (battery powered) it's like a siren, when pressed it alerts everyone and no one is sure where the sound is coming from..

Weepsie · 18-04-2019 11:04pm

CollyFlower wrote: »

You can't even get mudgards when buying a bike now... Regarding, Bicycle bells, do people still use the 'ding-ding` ones, the ones that can't be heard in traffic?.. I have a an alarm like one, (battery powered) it's like a siren, when pressed it alerts everyone and no one is sure where the sound is coming from..

I may be wrong, but I believe that's as illegal as not having a bell. Also they are properly irritating. If they are that distracting, they have no place being used on a bike if you ask me.

CollyFlower · 18-04-2019 11:14pm

Weepsie wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I believe that's as illegal as not having a bell. Also they are properly irritating. If they are that distracting, they have no place being used on a bike if you ask me.

I've never heard of them been illegal. It's hardly irritating if you're just giving it a occasional blast, I wouldn't be constantly blasting it like a 'christmas /birthday present.

TheChizler · 18-04-2019 11:38pm

CollyFlower wrote: »

You can't even get mudgards when buying a bike now... Regarding, Bicycle bells, do people still use the 'ding-ding` ones, the ones that can't be heard in traffic?.. I have a an alarm like one, (battery powered) it's like a siren, when pressed it alerts everyone and no one is sure where the sound is coming from..

That seems rather useful for something you use to alert someone of your presence.

tomasrojo · 19-04-2019 1:41am

CollyFlower wrote: »

I've never heard of them been illegal. It's hardly irritating if you're just giving it a occasional blast, I wouldn't be constantly blasting it like a 'christmas /birthday present.

93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/190/made/en/print

I don't think there's a more recent update to the statute book, so I think that makes non-bell attention-getters on bikes illegal.

I think bell legislation is more or less "dead letter" legislation now anyway. Nobody ever seems to get done for not having a bell, or for having an alternative noise-maker. It might get adduced in court if you were up for another bike-related offence though. I remember there was a collision in the UK between some teenagers, one of whom died, and a man on a high-performance bicycle, and some attention was paid to the bike not having pedal reflectors, even though it's a largely unenforced statute there, and it wasn't relevant to the collision.

tomasrojo · 19-04-2019 1:52am

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I do think there is an ego thing at play with the cyclist in front getting annoyed; its not saying get out of the way, its simply saying I'm coming past, and from a safety point of view that can only be a good thing.

But why are you saying "I'm coming past" and why to that particular cyclist?

In my experience, it's because the passing cyclist is trying to pass with centimetres to spare, or because you assume, for whatever reason, they're going to start cycling erratically.

In the first case, in a commuting context, it's the passing cyclist that has an ego problem, and ringing a bell or saying "on your right" doesn't mitigate that.

In the second case, I don't really know how you judge a cyclist is likely to do something erratic, and I really doubt people who advocate warning when passing do it to absolutely everyone, so it's not surprising that the odd person who receives this warning thinks you're chastising them, telling them to get out of the way, or assuming that they're probably not so good at this cycling lark, not like you are.

tomasrojo · 19-04-2019 1:55am

There is a third case, where a cyclist is on a collision course with you, or already doing something erratic. Ringing a bell, or whatever, is fine, and if the other party gets offended, which is still somewhat likely, given human nature, so be it.

tomasrojo · 19-04-2019 2:07am

partyguinness wrote: »

So what do you think the purpose of a bell is?

There isn't any advice from the RSA, or within the statutes, as far as I know.

The Unbelievable Truth maintains this:

Between 1888 and 1930 the law stated that cyclists had to ring their bell constantly while travelling as a safety measure.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/radio/the_unbelievable_truth/episodes/18/3/

I assume our mandatory bell law is the child of that one, with the requirement to ring at all time in motion removed, because it's so impractical, and annoying for all concerned.

Other than that, the only guide seems to be trying to interpret what the advice for sounding the horn is for motorists, which doesn't include passing in the normal scheme of things, but doesn't preclude all passing scenarios either; it does include warnings in the context of dangerous situations, which is a judgement call really.

AndrewJRenko · 22-04-2019 10:23pm

CollyFlower wrote: »

You can't even get mudgards when buying a bike now...

That's not true. There is an issue with many people being sold non-commuter bikes for commuting. There are many people being sold bikes without mudguards when they should really be sold bikes with mudguards, rack, dynamo, kickstand and other features to help commuters.

Bell Etiquette

Comments